On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla@molden.no> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:37 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> OK. One more question: how often do the tests fail? I want to include a
> >> note
> >> to repeat testing if the test fails.
> >
> > I don't like this. I think the prngs should use fixed seeds known to pass
> > the test. Depending on confidence intervals in the units tests is really,
> > really bad style. Tests should be deterministic.
> >
> > S.M.
> >
>> The hypergeometric tests are on the support of the distribution and
> should never fail. And the outcome is not random.
>> The test of logser with N = 100000 also should be pretty exact and
> fail only with very low probability in the patched version. But again
> this is testet in scipy.stats.
>> I think Sturlas idea to find a random seed that differentiates before
> and after will be better for numpy, and using only a small sample size
> e.g. N=1000, since it's pretty fast. But since I don't have an
> unpatched numpy version available right now, I cannot do this.
>
Done. Thanks for the fixes and tests.
Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20090314/d0afffff/attachment.html